What's your opinion?

[Guest Mark]

This is a general post about med school admissions, not really pertaining to U of T.

 

As everybody knows, this IS a very stressful time, and the waiting/wondering can take a lot out of you. However, after having been to a few interviews and going through the whole waiting and worrying, a few things have continuously crossed my mind.

 

#1: The MCAT. Is it a measure of aptitude in the medical profession?

Likely not. What it really measures is how much money and time you have. If you can afford to take a summer off to study, and have the financial assistance to take a prep course or to, you are guaranteed to meet all minimum Ontario cutoffs and will likely exceed them. Sure, some may see this time and money commitment as true dedication, but is it?. In the summer, the big worry is paying the bills (tuition is not cheap) and keeping yourself fed and off the streets. When you're working 40-60 hours a week and want to keep a social life, the whole MCAT thing can really become a nuisance.

 

#2: The people considered and the people accepted. Are they going to be the best physicians?

Everyone in med school and all invited to the interviews are obviously qualified to handle the workload and are most likely normal people (e.g. based on their sketches and fancy references), but does their personality suit the whole dealing with patients business? All the people in meds and at interviews are all really nice, and I'm sure they want to save the world, but do they care about Joe Average who can't foot the rent or who is being neglected by society (e.g., getting the runaround from physicians, landlords, neighbours, etc.. we all know these people)? I've seen a lot of arrogance, insincerety and dishonesty in both med schools and pre med. Everyone rehearses their scripted answers to wow the interviewers when it's plainly obvious why they're going into the profession; grandiose dreams of Stature and Money. Although schools say they can see right through these bad personality traits, they obviously cannot, because then every med student would be an honest, hardworking, sincere individual. This is not based on two or three anectdotal experiences, but on 4 years of working with medical students from different Canadian schools

 

#3 Reference Letters. Is the neighbour/McDonalds boss who knew you for many years useless compared to a distinguished PhD/MD who has known you for a year or two?

 

Anyone can fake it in front of some older person for a few days a week over a couple of years to ensure a beaming reference letter, but wouldn't a school rather see a reference from some less 'distinguished' community member who was witnessed an individuals development over a period of many years and knows that person outside of a research/work environment and will probably provide a better estimation of that persons capabilities/personality, etc.?

Regardless, schools WOULD rather see a reference from a person with a lot of initials after his/her name (MD, BSc., MSc., blah blah) than joe blow, so we (people applying to meds) all make sure we get the fancy references who will give us a good reference, because we know that's what everyone else is doing. So what if you're an honest, caring and fun neighbour/employee, what really matters is that some professional liked you during your limited work hours/experience with him/her.

I'm not bashing these professionals, because they WILL provide good estimations of character in most cases, but you have THREE references, so why not choose one that will reflect the demographics of the patients that you will be seeing as a practising physician?

 

The last comment I have is that it seems as if Medical school is a school by the rich for the rich. How do you get exotic travel/volunteer experiences on your resumer? With money; you can afford travel and can afford to volunteer your time rather than working for paid money at a restaurant/bar/whatever. If you don't need to work during the school year to pay your way, then you will have that much time to focus on schoolwork, extracurricular, etc. Even the MCAT, prep books, application, interview travel expenses are very costly, especially with the slim odds of getting in.

 

Personally, I am pretty spoiled. My mommy and daddy pay for school and I have use of a car, a house (my families) with a fridge full of food, a functioning washing/drying machine, good computer, phone, and even family members always around for help/advice. That's why I was able to pull off the grades and explore extracurricular opportunities which helped make me a good candidate for meds.

But what about that really nice, bright hardworking person who had to work 25 hours a week during the school year to pay off exobitant loans and such.

If you can train anyone to work at McDonalds, than its not that far-fetched to say that if the desire is there, than you can train anyone (in a good school institution) to become a doctor. It's just a shame that class separation is apparent in higher education streams like medicine.

 

If you managed to read all of this, then tell me what you think of all this.

[Guest DxRShawndx]

Yes, the person who has the will, yet not the money is truely going to suffer. What about student loans? How much can they do? Life cant be all about studying and doing tests. Handling the pressure of a doctor is a test and I think that if someone has the will, then they can surely be trained no matter whom it be.

 

Well, thats just my opinon though...

 

Later

[Guest anon guy]

I don't agree about the being able to train anyone for MD theory (given anyone can work for McDonalds). Those who are not observant and/or have bad memory probably will make more misdiagnoses.

 

I do agree that professional schools (not just meds) is designed for the rich. Ferraris are also designed for the rich. Some rich people get into meds and more deserving people don't. Same goes for sports cars. I think this is a product of capitalism, so let's have a revolution and make this a communist country.

[Guest Mark]

I'm not trying to start a socialist revolution here, but the point that rich people have ferraris and so rich kids have it much easier to get into grad school is just the way things are is a poor comparison.

 

Focusing on med school in particular, this is the field where they really want 'well-rounded, good, honest people', and they really try hard to make that point (e.g., Mac's crazy extracurricular needs, outstanding autobiographic sketch, etc.), but it's so obvious that this is not the case. Furthermore, all schools, politicians, whatever, say that you can be anything you want to be, but that is not the case. Although Education is a right, higher education is a privilege given only to those who can afford it. Med schools make a huge point of filling demographic quotas (ethnicity, rural/urban, gender, disability) but miss a big one; class. The point I was trying to get across was that in such a stringent application process as medicine, where the goal is to recruit a wide variety of people, they should recognize who they are shutting out and hopefully make some changes. You'd just think that if med schools and the whole field was indeed filled with the best and brightest, than they wouldve addressed this blunder a while ago.

[Guest anon guy]

The communist suggestion was just to point out my opinion (and partially yours) that marks and money are somewhat correlated. As you have mentioned, it's easier to get good GPA and MCAT score if there is no burden of having to work a part-time job.

 

However, it is very easy to compare grades and very hard to give scores for "well-roundedness" or "good, honest people". That is evident in the griping going on in the Mac discussion board. Doctors ought to be good at studying, because even in med school they have to memorize and understand a huge amount of concepts so it is safer for a school to accept someone with proven academic skills. In any case, even though med students are somewhat richer than the average joe, at least they are not the "spoiled rich" type who don't study and have crazy parties all through university. Do you have any suggestions for improving the selection process?

 

"be anything you want to be"... hmm, well with rising tuition and the impending "double cohort" crisis, it may be difficult for some to even enter undergrad. Why not follow the mindset of immigrant families of yesteryear and work really hard so the *kids* could go through school without working (wanna save lives? get Junior to do it!)

[Guest Scott]

I think your points are well stated.

 

I also agree that the system favours the wealthy who have the ability to spend summers abroad, focus on studies during the school year and work on the number of activities they can ream off during the interview. As such this is reflected in the Doctors we have currently in system. When was the last time you went to a doctor (family or specialist) where you just said to yourself.. wow that person is an amazing person and an even more spectacular and compassionate healer. They have been raised basking in wealth where the family showered them with money, praise and support. This leads to doctors who are self centered and concerned with their own interests. That is why none of them seem to lend their so called intelligence to solving the health care crisis. Instead they spend their time threatening to leave if the system doesn't let them bill properly. Its funny because they played a large part in the system falling apart. I was reading an article where it was discussing the reason the magnetic strip ohip cards were introduced in Ontario. The picture in the front was to prevent patient fraud (ie using someone elses card) but the magnetic strip was because 87% of all doctors in Ontario liked use overbilling fraudulent tricks such as charging twice for seeing a patient when they only saw them once. Now the card has to be swiped each time a patient is seen to avoid this type of fraud. So much for all the crap that spewed in interviews about being a rural doctor and helping the 3rd world countries.

 

Its just more Porsces for the family tree

 

Later

[Guest Akane200]

I can't get over how people think that all med students come from rich and wealthy families. While this is a widespread stereotype, it isn't always how you think it is (like family foots the bills etc.).

 

I also doubt very much about how 87% fraudulently overbill, I don't think it was really that high a proportion of physicians (what are you quoting anyway??? how long ago was it?). If you want to defraud the gov't through billings, you can still do that without abusing the magnetic strips (as illustrated by an article in the Toronto Star about a physician that billed services that were never used; and the newspaper found one physician doing this who is now before the royal college).

 

I agree that good grades does correlate somewhat with wealth and resources available, but the relationship is not a direct cause and effect, and does not hold in many cases. I know a lot of rich kids who did the whole pre med thing and still had terrible grades (and never got to med school, they went into dentistry and optometry that's all ). I think that having support of your family does lend all the advantages stated by Mark. But I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I don't see it as unfair. And if it is really unfair, I don't know how else med schools can screen applicants to better level the playing field (not everyone is the same).

 

I also don't exactly buy the argument that just because an applicant had a good supportive family to help him get all the advantages, marks, and extra-curriculars that he needed to get into med school, that he will not make a good physician (which is what the previous posts seem to imply). Just because of his socioeconomic background, it shouldn't be implied that these so-called "rich kids" are any less suitable for becoming a physician. They could be "rich" and smart, and kind hearted too. The problem lies in the stereotype that rich kids are systemically selected into med school. But I still feel that the admissions process does screen for "suitability" for medicine. If you've had tougher experiences due to your individual situation, I think they do take that into consideration to a certain extent.

 

I also know that many many of my classmates are on OSAP, or running up personal loans of over $100k (like me). While paying $16,000 tuition this year for med school, I find it difficult to get through med school without some family support (and my family is neither poor nor rich). So, just to re-iterate: we are not all rich kids!!! There may be a few rich kids in our class, but I doubt that it's a large proportion.

 

If you really wanted to eliminate the barriers that keep lower socioeconomic classes out of med school, it's not the selection process that you should be scrutinizing, but the daunting debt load and tuition that we face. If you're poor, it can be very very difficult to get through med school financially (a much larger deterrant than the selection process). You may get in, but how in the world will you pay for it?

[Guest anon guy]

I'm gonna take a stab at that point about neighbour references... I believe admissions would feel a prof has a good chance of being credible and knows the student's academic ability (this is arguable of course). The problem is, how does admissions know the credibility of the reference? (unless they interview them too!) I'm not saying all profs write honest reference letters, some might just sign something the student had prepared.

 

Other trustworthy (non-academic) people may include community leaders, religious leaders, etc... I have heard some people get their letters this way.

 

Unless the admissions committee has some way of knowing more about the neighbour, they'll take the safe route and ignore it!

[Guest Ian Wong]

I'm going to move this to the Premed forum, since it's not really Toronto-centric...

 

Ian

UBC, Med 3

[Guest bad hombre]

oh yeah, i definitely agree that because of my dad, i'm able to get by without a job. on top of that dad's paying for my trip to a country overseas to volunteer there. plus i'm not working this summer so i can study 8 hours a day for the mcat. it's crazy and unfair, i know, but you gotta take what you are given.

 

i wish there was some way of not factoring the wealth factor into the equation. i don't know if med schools do this, but they really should.

[Guest usuck]

How did they get into dentistry and optometry with terrible grades?

 

Grades needed are on par with medical school aren't they not?

[Guest anon ghoul]

Has anyone heard of rumours about really rich people buying their way into meds (or other professional school in Canada)? I wonder how good the safeguards are against this sort of thing... I don't mean this as in money under the table, but I have heard some guy donating a million bucks to U of T and incidentally his kid got into meds a few years later. I am not sure if these two events are independent or not

 

As we all know exact stats about each applicant seem to be quite hush-hush and so I personally think something like this is not impossible.

[Guest UWOMED2005]

I've seen it happen with undergrad. . . but never meds.

[Guest TerryJ]

Hey I'll just relay my story

 

I grew up poor, my dad died when I was really young and my mom had to support 4 kids herself. I worked through the summers and the only trip I ever took was to Florida when I was 12. I even took a year off between 2nd and 3rd year to work for more money to pull though the last two years and applications/MCAT etc. I think getting into med school requires a certain amount of raw intellectual horsepower. Its not something you can practice at and play with to make perfect. I know people who took 6 courses, worked part time and still did great in school. I also know others who took 5 courses never worked but could never crack the 3.4 barrier (these people did not get in). Med school admissions in Canada anyway are designed to allow these smart people to have a chance. Queen's, UofT, Mac and Ottawa requires your complete GPA to be very high, Western Ok they probably have a few that have slipped in with the best year rule but still its rare. The MCAT is similar. I think practicing for the MCAT will make you great at taking past MCATS, however the one you write is a whole different animal, either you have it or you dont, its really a thinking persons test. As far as beefing up application with deliberate attempts at looking well rounded. Adcomms see right through that. The volunteer trip in the third year, the volunteering like carzy in 4th year...they know whats going on. I was honest, I couldnt afford to take summers off to travel I worked my butt of at 2 two jobs(one day, one night) and I explained this in my interviews. They loved it, I was real and I experienced real people in Canada through my work.. people that I one day would treat. Needless to say I got accepted, yes with a household income of 32,000 and several mouths to feed. I dont think the process is flawed it just angers those who try really hard to become someone they think will "look" appealing for the interviewers.

 

In all honesty the majourity of people who get in are they because they deserve to be there. Sure there will be people who slip in through the waiting list of waiting list of the waiting list (they are pretty obvious with their glazed look and sadness in knowing they will surely have to hope for that rural med residency in the third round match) but most of the people accepted are really smart and have worked their butt off...not looking good for the adcomms but just because thats who they are. If you have to sit on your butt for 4 months doing nothing but MCAT stuff, In your interview it will be clear that you cannot juggle alot, are not really motivated and dont have the intellectual ability to succeed. This is not me personally talking, I'm sure you and people like you are great individuals but the adcomms look for a reason to put an x through your name. Often the people help the cause by who they are and their actions. So I dont think its an issue of rich or poor but rather the type of person you are.

 

Just my 2 cents

[Guest Akane200]

Just to clarify (because some one asked). The rich kids I knew went to the US for dents and optometry, not in Canada.

 

Also, thanks TerryJ for your story.

[Guest Alikat]

Its great to see that you were able to make it in, but the sad truth is that its MUCH harder to even get to the interview stage without the grades, mcat, etc, simply because of the cutoffs, and those cutoffs ARE easier to meet when you've got the time and money. A lot of people in your position would probably be overwhelmed by their familial situation and would likely not even have a strenuous grad program even cross their mind.

 

As for the admissions committee seeing right through the person whose third and fourth year are stacked with E-C stuff, I'd disagree. What if you found out that being a doctor was what you really wanted to do in 2nd year, not in High School like a lot of others. Then, when you find out about the competition, you realize that you have to start doing more with your time than just school to up your chances, because that's the way it is. If youre in second year, have great grades, its guarantee you'll get in, because you need to be more well rounded than that. Then it's not resume padding, its personal development. A phony person is a phony person and should get weeded out for that.

 

Its funny too how all the administrators for this web page disagree with the first guys point and, and their opinions jive well with most med students. Once they get in, they act like it was a breeze to get in, they didn't stress about the mcat and the admissions process is perfect. Well of course it is if you got in!

 

Those are my two cents

[Guest AniyaSG]

IMO, they should be looking for people who volunteer or are active in their community (for money or for free ), because they like it, and not because they want to apply to medicine. Someone who only becomes active in the community after they decide they want to be a doctor would not be likely to continue wanting to be involved afterwards, and would probably not be the candidate they are looking for as far as ECs go... Were I to be a member of an admissions committee, I would surely rank a candidate with consistent involvement higher than a last-minute-volunteer-time-resume-padder. If it were simply a question of personal development, it would not spike in 3rd or 4th year.

 

On an unrelated note, I'm actually enjoying the interview process so far this year...

[Guest Hello]

I was wondering what impression it would give you as an interviewer if I were to mention that I have volunteered numberous times in hospitals, but have recently emphasized my volunteer activities outside the hospital setting to get more variety. It is not that I do not enjoy helping people for the sake of helping people, but that I also want a greater scope of experiences, and since I am no health care professional yet, I thought I might give these other activities a go, while halting those hospital volunteering sessions for a while. Does this come across as a weakness you think?

[Guest monkey]

I think that University Education, because it is not free, already causes some disparity in opportunity two people of different classes.

 

It may be more so true of professional schools. Med schools nowadays seem to have an increased focus on extracurricular activities. And true, to some extent this helps students develop other skills. But in light of the limitations that socio-economic factors may incur, perhaps schools should also have a focus on 'life experiences' in addition to 'extracurricular experiences.'

 

I know that med schools tend to select for students who can demonstrate excellence in some other respect other than school. But isn't being able to juggle a 2 part-time jobs (which just happen to involve dealing with all kinds of people amidst stress) while in school full-time (just an example) just as admirable as someone who excels in violin or something of the sort? May it even be more relavent?